Discussion on Copyright, Privacy and Other Information

This thread is created hopefully for discussing copyright issues and responsibilities, rights and guidance on what we can/should and cannot/should not – post on message-type boards and the internet in general. Oftentimes we are not sure or have many questions. Or we think that if we post the wrong thing someone in the know will tell us (hopefully kindly) and we'll know better next time.

For the consideration of all members, let’s try to keep it in plain English as much as possible.

As most of the VM sites have international membership we often wonder which laws we are to follow -- our own country’s laws or that of the ownership of the website or what? So I decided to take an international approach in doing some research and have come up with some information that I hope will be helpful.

For starters:

Copyright is one of the laws that falls under a larger umbrella term called Intellectual Property or IP.

Quote :

“Intellectual property refers to creations of the mind: inventions, literary and artistic works, and symbols, names, images, and designs used in commerce.”

Quoted from WIPO website

Intellectual property is further divided into two groups: copyright and industrial property (i.e. patents, trademarks etc.)

The above comes from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) which is a specialized agency of the United Nations.

Here is a link to WIPO’s very informative handbook, written in layman’s terms, called ‘Understanding Copyright and Related Rights.’ http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/index.html


If you look up in the top right-hand corner you can access in other languages as the website is multi-lingual however the Handbook is only in English.

Now questions:

What kinds of things are protected by copyright? Most of us have an idea but page 8 gives a pretty complete description.

Where does copyright begin or where is it held? As member countries of WIPO (which is most of us) we are subject to the Berne Convention which is discussed in the Handbook. For the most part it is understood that the copyright is held by the author.

Here’s what Wikipedia says about it:

Quote :

The Berne Convention requires its signatories to recognise the copyright of works of authors from other signatory countries (known as members of the Berne Union) in the same way it recognises the copyright of its own nationals, which means that, for instance, French copyright law applies to anything published or performed in France, regardless of where it was originally created.

And from WIPO:

Quote :

Copyright and Related Rights

Disclaimer: The attention of the Secretariat of WIPO has been drawn to the fact that certain organizations issue certificates purporting to grant copyright protection. It should be noted that these certificates do not create any right. The Secretariat recalls that, by virtue of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, works are protected without any formality in all the countries party to that Convention. This means that international copyright protection is automatic, it exists as soon as a work is created, and this principle applies in all the countries party to the Berne Convention.

From the WIPO site

This link will take you to a World Directory of Intellectual Property and/or Copyright Offices:

http://www.wipo.int/directory/en/urls.jsp

There is so much to know and discuss on this subject like moral rights, enforcement and fair use. Again the WIPO Handbook touches on them and is easy to understand. And if you want you can follow the Wikipedia sitelinks to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works


Kaladhar

I am verry sorry, but I do not understand the things you have written, because my Englisch is not so good. What will that mean for the Forum here? Can we post nothing of Viggo any more, because we do not own the copyright? Then we must ask first when we want posting a picture or a interview or so?

No,no Lisa,you didn't understand right Kal!
We can post anything of Viggo of course!
If I understood right,Kal says that we can protect our property..The things we made,like poetry,pics and such things....

10 Big Myths about copyright explained

An attempt to answer common myths about copyright seen on the net and cover issues related to copyright and USENET/Internet publication.
- by Brad Templeton

Note that this is an essay about copyright myths. It assumes you know at least what copyright is -- basically the legal exclusive right of the author of a creative work to control the copying of that work. If you didn't know that, check out my own brief introduction to copyright for more information. Feel free to link to this document, no need to ask me. Really, NO need to ask.

1) "If it doesn't have a copyright notice, it's not copyrighted."
This was true in the past, but today almost all major nations follow the Berne copyright convention. For example, in the USA, almost everything created privately and originally after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not. The default you should assume for other people's works is that they are copyrighted and may not be copied unless you know otherwise. There are some old works that lost protection without notice, but frankly you should not risk it unless you know for sure.

It is true that a notice strengthens the protection, by warning people, and by allowing one to get more and different damages, but it is not necessary. If it looks copyrighted, you should assume it is. This applies to pictures, too. You may not scan pictures from magazines and post them to the net, and if you come upon something unknown, you shouldn't post that either.

The correct form for a notice is:

"Copyright [dates] by [author/owner]"

You can use C in a circle © instead of "Copyright" but "(C)" has never been given legal force. The phrase "All Rights Reserved" used to be required in some nations but is now not legally needed most places. In some countries it may help preserve some of the "moral rights."

2) "If I don't charge for it, it's not a violation."
False. Whether you charge can affect the damages awarded in court, but that's main difference under the law. It's still a violation if you give it away -- and there can still be serious damages if you hurt the commercial value of the property. There is an exception for personal copying of music, which is not a violation, though courts seem to have said that doesn't include widescale anonymous personal copying as Napster. If the work has no commercial value, the violation is mostly technical and is unlikely to result in legal action. Fair use determinations (see below) do sometimes depend on the involvement of money.

3) "If it's posted to Usenet it's in the public domain."
False. Nothing modern and creative is in the public domain anymore unless the owner explicitly puts it in the public domain(*). Explicitly, as in you have a note from the author/owner saying, "I grant this to the public domain." Those exact words or words very much like them.

Some argue that posting to Usenet implicitly grants permission to everybody to copy the posting within fairly wide bounds, and others feel that Usenet is an automatic store and forward network where all the thousands of copies made are done at the command (rather than the consent) of the poster. This is a matter of some debate, but even if the former is true (and in this writer's opinion we should all pray it isn't true) it simply would suggest posters are implicitly granting permissions "for the sort of copying one might expect when one posts to Usenet" and in no case is this a placement of material into the public domain. It is important to remember that when it comes to the law, computers never make copies, only human beings make copies. Computers are given commands, not permission. Only people can be given permission. Furthermore it is very difficult for an implicit licence to supersede an explicitly stated licence that the copier was aware of.

Note that all this assumes the poster had the right to post the item in the first place. If the poster didn't, then all the copies are pirated, and no implied licence or theoretical reduction of the copyright can take place.

(*) Copyrights can expire after a long time, putting something into the public domain, and there are some fine points on this issue regarding older copyright law versions. However, none of this applies to material from the modern era, such as net postings.

Note that granting something to the public domain is a complete abandonment of all rights. You can't make something "PD for non-commercial use." If your work is PD, other people can even modify one byte and put their name on it.

4) "My posting was just fair use!"
See other notes on fair use for a detailed answer, but bear the following in mind:

The "fair use" exemption to (U.S.) copyright law was created to allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author. That's vital so that copyright law doesn't block your freedom to express your own works -- only the ability to appropriate other people's. Intent, and damage to the commercial value of the work are important considerations. Are you reproducing an article from the New York Times because you needed to in order to criticise the quality of the New York Times, or because you couldn't find time to write your own story, or didn't want your readers to have to register at the New York Times web site? The first is probably fair use, the others probably aren't.

Fair use is generally a short excerpt and almost always attributed. (One should not use much more of the work than is needed to make the commentary.) It should not harm the commercial value of the work -- in the sense of people no longer needing to buy it (which is another reason why reproduction of the entire work is a problem.) Famously, copying just 300 words from Gerald Ford's 200,000 word memoir for a magazine article was ruled as not fair use, in spite of it being very newsworthy, because it was the most important 300 words -- why he pardoned Nixon.

Note that most inclusion of text in followups and replies is for commentary, and it doesn't damage the commercial value of the original posting (if it has any) and as such it is almost surely fair use. Fair use isn't an exact doctrine, though. The court decides if the right to comment overrides the copyright on an individual basis in each case. There have been cases that go beyond the bounds of what I say above, but in general they don't apply to the typical net misclaim of fair use.

The "fair use" concept varies from country to country, and has different names (such as "fair dealing" in Canada) and other limitations outside the USA.

Facts and ideas can't be copyrighted, but their expression and structure can. You can always write the facts in your own wordsthough

See the DMCA alert for recent changes in the law.

5) "If you don't defend your copyright you lose it." -- "Somebody has that name copyrighted!"
False. Copyright is effectively never lost these days, unless explicitly given away. You also can't "copyright a name" or anything short like that, such as almost all titles. You may be thinking of trade marks, which apply to names, and can be weakened or lost if not defended.

You generally trademark terms by using them to refer to your brand of a generic type of product or service. Like a "Delta" airline. Delta Airlines "owns" that word applied to air travel, even though it is also an ordinary word. Delta Hotels owns it when applied to hotels. (This case is fairly unusual as both are travel companies. Usually the industries are more distinct.) Neither owns the word on its own, only in context, and owning a mark doesn't mean complete control -- see a more detailed treatise on this law for details.

You can't use somebody else's trademark in a way that would steal the value of the mark, or in a way that might make people confuse you with the real owner of the mark, or which might allow you to profit from the mark's good name. For example, if I were giving advice on music videos, I would be very wary of trying to label my works with a name like "mtv." :-) You can use marks to critcise or parody the holder, as long as it's clear you aren't the holder.

6) "If I make up my own stories, but base them on another work, my new work belongs to me."
False. U.S. Copyright law is quite explicit that the making of what are called "derivative works" -- works based or derived from another copyrighted work -- is the exclusive province of the owner of the original work. This is true even though the making of these new works is a highly creative process. If you write a story using settings or characters from somebody else's work, you need that author's permission.

Yes, that means almost all "fan fiction" is arguably a copyright violation. If you want to publish a story about Jim Kirk and Mr. Spock, you need Paramount's permission, plain and simple. Now, as it turns out, many, but not all holders of popular copyrights turn a blind eye to "fan fiction" or even subtly encourage it because it helps them. Make no mistake, however, that it is entirely up to them whether to do that.

There is a major exception -- criticism and
parody. The fair use provision says that if you want to make fun of something like Star Trek, you don't need their permission to include Mr. Spock. This is not a loophole; you can't just take a non-parody and claim it is one on a technicality. The way "fair use" works is you get sued for copyright infringement, and you admit you did copy, but that your copying was a fair use. A subjective judgment on, among other things, your goals, is then made.

However, it's also worth noting that a court has never ruled on this issue, because fan fiction cases always get settled quickly when the defendant is a fan of limited means sued by a powerful publishing company. Some argue that completely non-commercial fan fiction might be declared a fair use if courts get to decide. You can read more
7) "They can't get me, defendants in court have powerful rights!"
Copyright law is mostly civil law. If you violate copyright you would usually get sued, not be charged with a crime. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a principle of criminal law, as is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." Sorry, but in copyright suits, these don't apply the same way or at all. It's mostly which side and set of evidence the judge or jury accepts or believes more, though the rules vary based on the type of infringement. In civil cases you can even be made to testify against your own interests.

"Oh, so copyright violation isn't a crime or anything?"
Actually, in the 90s in the USA commercial copyright violation involving more than 10 copies and value over $2500 was made a felony. So watch out. (At least you get the protections of criminal law.) On the other hand, don't think you're going to get people thrown in jail for posting your E-mail. The courts have much better things to do. This is a fairly new, untested statute. In one case an operator of a pirate BBS that didn't charge was acquited because he didn't charge, but congress amended the law to cover that.

9) "It doesn't hurt anybody -- in fact it's free advertising."
It's up to the owner to decide if they want the free ads or not. If they want them, they will be sure to contact you. Don't rationalize whether it hurts the owner or not, ask them. Usually that's not too hard to do. Time past, ClariNet published the very funny Dave Barry column to a large and appreciative Usenet audience for a fee, but some person didn't ask, and forwarded it to a mailing list, got caught, and the newspaper chain that employs Dave Barry pulled the column from the net, pissing off everybody who enjoyed it. Even if you can't think of how the author or owner gets hurt, think about the fact that piracy on the net hurts everybody who wants a chance to use this wonderful new technology to do more than read other people's flamewars.

10) "They e-mailed me a copy, so I can post it."
To have a copy is not to have the copyright. All the E-mail you write is copyrighted. However, E-mail is not, unless previously agreed, secret. So you can certainly report on what E-mail you are sent, and reveal what it says. You can even quote parts of it to demonstrate. Frankly, somebody who sues over an ordinary message would almost surely get no damages, because the message has no commercial value, but if you want to stay strictly in the law, you should ask first. On the other hand, don't go nuts if somebody posts E-mail you sent them. If it was an ordinary non-secret personal letter of minimal commercial value with no copyright notice (like 99.9% of all E-mail), you probably won't get any damages if you sue them. Note as well that, the law aside, keeping private correspondence private is a courtesy one should usually honour.

11)"So I can't ever reproduce anything?"
Myth #11 (I didn't want to change the now-famous title of this article) is actually one sometimes generated in response to this list of 10 myths. No, copyright isn't an iron-clad lock on what can be published. Indeed, by many arguments, by providing reward to authors, it encourages them to not just allow, but fund the publication and distribution of works so that they reach far more people than they would if they were free or unprotected -- and unpromoted. However, it must be remembered that copyright has two main purposes, namely the protection of the author's right to obtain commercial benefit from valuable work, and more recently the protection of the author's general right to control how a work is used.

While copyright law makes it technically illegal to reproduce almost any new creative work (other than under fair use) without permission, if the work is unregistered and has no real commercial value, it gets very little protection. The author in this case can sue for an injunction against the publication, actual damages from a violation, and possibly court costs. Actual damages means actual money potentially lost by the author due to publication, plus any money gained by the defendant. But if a work has no commercial value, such as a typical E-mail message or conversational USENET posting, the actual damages will be zero. Only the most vindictive (and rich) author would sue when no damages are possible, and the courts don't look kindly on vindictive plaintiffs, unless the defendants are even more vindictive.

The author's right to control what is done with a work, however, has some validity, even if it has no commercial value. If you feel you need to violate a copyright "because you can get away with it because the work has no value" you should ask yourself why you're doing it. In general, respecting the rights of creators to control their creations is a principle many advocate adhering to.

In addition, while quite often people make incorrect claims of "fair use" it is a still valid and important concept necessary to allow the criticism of copyrighted works and their creators through examples. It's also been extended to allow things like home recording of TV shows and moving music from CDs you own to your MP3 player. But please read more about it before you do it.

Here you can read about the LINKING RIGHTS

What is Copyright?
What is Copyright and Who Owns it?

The law governing copyright in the UK is the Copyright, Design and Patents Act (CDPA) (1988) and amendments. It exists to protect the intellectual standing and economic rights of creators and publishers of all literary, dramatic, artistic, musical, audiovisual and electronic works. As long as the work is original, copyright protection is automatic. In the UK where there is no registration or other procedures to follow, copyright exists whether or not it is asserted using the © symbol or otherwise. The copyright symbol (©) was established by the Universal Copyright Convention in 1952 and when used signifies that the work is copyright protected.

In the first instance copyright ownership rests with the author or creator of a literary, musical or artistic wor

k. However if the work was undertaken in the course of employment the employer will probably own the copyright unless there is a contract to specify otherwise.

Copyright is unusual in that it can be assigned or sold to another person or organisation: frequently an author may assign some or all of his/her copyrights to a publisher. Therefore when seeking to identify the copyright owner the most likely parties to consider are:

* creator/author
* employer
* person who undertakes the arrangements (commissions the work)
* the producer
* the publisher

Copyright owners have exclusive rights to their work which include the right:

* to copy work
* to issue copies of the work to the public
* to perform, show or play the work in public
* to broadcast the work or include it in a cable programme service
* to adapt the work or do any of the above in relation to the adaptation.

Therefore anybody doing any of the above without permission or licence is infringing copyright.

Here you can read much more about the copyrights,I will post a bit of this imformation...

Who Can Claim Copyright?

Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright.

In the case of works made for hire, the employer and not the employee is considered to be the author.
...............

read more


Copyright Law of the United States of America
and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code

Hi Lisa The idea to start this thread was not to make rules but to have a discussion. So we can all learn together. Maybe some others will post things like Snowy has just done. I am sorry if it is all in English. The site I posted is international so I was hoping many would choose their language.

Copyright is mostly about personal things likes poems, paintings, pics and things like that. Many people are worried about posting their own creations. Or Viggo's like his poems. But let us see together what things we should know.

But we should still all be having fun and enjoying being a Viggo fan.

I think you are right,Vigs...

Vigs Thy girl wrote:

Oh, Kal! I understand! Like when I posted my own photo as a birthday card to Viggo. I better write copyright on it, then!

Well my understanding Vigs is that it is not necessary to use the little 'C' or to write copyright on your pic. As long as it is understood you are the author or creator. I did the same thing posted a picture of my own on another site for Viggo's birthday. But if I go somewhere and I see my pic being used or changed I can ask them to delete it since they did not ask my permission. And since it is my creation no one has the right to tamper with it. It is understood when you put something on the web it can be copied.

I still not understand it. When we protect the things we make then the other people must protect the things they make too or not? When a fotografer makes a picture of Viggo then it is his picture and when we want to post it here we must ask him first if he is alright with it. Or do I understand this wrong? Or when somebody makes a Wallpaper of Viggo, then it is his work and we must ask if we can post it here.

Well,it depends!
Some photographers make the photos with the purpose to be seen from other people!
So then thoses pics are not protected with copyright!
But sometimes some people protect their work with copyright!
And you have to know what is protected or else you gonna have troubles!
The wallpapers that are posted in internet and are not protected can be get for free!But some wallpapers that are protected can not be get so easy!You first will need to ask for permission to post this wallpaper or to download it!
Some boards where the people have done such wroks have right-click protection,then you can not get this wallpaper.
So the point of Kal is that if someone of us wants to post something made by self,this person will maybe want to protect his work,so no one will be able to re-post it without a permission!
Or if someone wants to post something that have been gotten from another site,board,etc. and is protected,the one who pots it will have much troubles if the owner didn't get agree his work to be posted in other board and webs...

Yes Snowy all of that is true. I will give an example. I post a photograph of my own creation on Viggoville. Then I see it posted over on All Things Viggo by someone else. Then I see it over here. I can go to the person posting and say this is my picture please do not use it. The person can remove it or they may say well prove it is your picture. So then I send them to Viggoville where is the first time I have posted it. But the person says well I found it on All Things Viggo. So I go there and the person who posted it says well I found on Google images. Then what? I suppose it then depends on how much I want my image removed eh? For the average person like myself well I have the option to let it go, don't post anymore pictures or go to the hosting site and make them take it down. Most hosting sites do not want their users in violation of copyright. So they will take action.

The internet is a very, very big place. Like a galaxy. So hard to police and enforce. So if you are in violation there is very little chance someone can come back on you unless you are either reported or say for example a law student decides he/she will look at all fan sites for copyright infringement for a project or to earn money. I hear this is being done a lot. Fan boards are a natural target as most sites are loaded with copyright infringement. This is certainly no reflection on the celebrity by the way.

A few things are important:

- Protect your own creations as much as possible or do not post.
- A closed board does not guarantee your creations will not be posted elsewhere.
- When in doubt ask permission. Most times the authors are flattered and do not mind.
- As much as possible, always write down source just like a bibliography in a report.
- If the source is also copyright infringing and wants you to take it down - well battle it out!
- Remember once you post something on the internet it is considered 'published' -- which means you cannot enter it into a contest where they ask for unpublished works.
- If you remove a watermark or copyright notation on a picture - if it can be proven you are the one who did it - you can have serious problems.
- If asked to remove by the proven copyright owner - then just do it. Ethically it is the right thing to do.

Oh,good and long explenation!!!
Thanks Kal!
Yes,it is really important to know theses things ...

So when I find a picture that is posted open for everybody to see it then I can take it and post it everywhere, right?

Again it depends where it is posted..

Lisa wrote:

So when I find a picture that is posted open for everybody to see it then I can take it and post it everywhere, right?

You can Lisa people do it all the time including myself. But I rarely take a photo or poem if I know who the author is without asking their permission. Very often we don't know and that is when we use it.

Most creators and artists are protective of their creations. They worry that others will take their creation and either change it, use it for bad purposes or claim as their own. If you do not have a bad intent usually there is no problem. For art it is like walking past your neighbours' gardens and you like the flowers but you would not pick them without their permission. Not the best example but one I could think of.

yes,that is true!
Thanks Kal

Kaladhar wrote:

But I rarely take a photo or poem if I know who the author is without asking their permission.

So you mean when we post a poem or something of Viggo then we must write to him and ask him first? Because then we are very sure who was it who wrote it, right?

Well,Lisa....
after we can not can not ask his permission,we can just post it...
I am not pretty sure!

But you have say that when we can ask we must ask. This confuses me a lot. When do I know when I must ask and when not? I canot post anything then when I am not sure that it is not illegal. When I find a picture and not know who makes it, so I canot ask for permission, then still somebody owns it and I canot take it and not ask before. Do you understand what I mean? Not to know who to ask for permission canot mean I can take it for free. Or I can always say I did not know and be ok with it. That is not fair for the people who the pictures belong to.

Lisa wrote:

But you have say that when we can ask we must ask. This confuses me a lot. When do I know when I must ask and when not? I canot post anything then when I am not sure that it is not illegal. When I find a picture and not know who makes it, so I canot ask for permission, then still somebody owns it and I canot take it and not ask before. Do you understand what I mean? Not to know who to ask for permission canot mean I can take it for free. Or I can always say I did not know and be ok with it. That is not fair for the people who the pictures belong to.

Lisa I posted a link in my first post on this subject to find your country's copyright rules and policy. It will give you a better idea. It is not a matter of 'must' but one of ethics.

In the case of commercialism and copyright let me give an example: A company once used a picture of a child for which they did not get permission to use. It was not a stock photo but a picture someone took. Unfortunately the picture was used to promote a product. The child's picture was in magazines and posters etc. The family was very upset as the child had been killed a year earlier and all of a sudden his picture is being used to sell a product. They took legal action.

One should know the rules and then make it a question of the heart.

Oh yes Kal,it is matter of ethics!

That's sad,what they did with the picture!They shouldn't use it!
Thanks for this example!

Well, I read though some of the treads on Viggoland today and I just have to give out a word of warning here!
Everyone has to decide him - or herself whether to go along or to skip rules or laws..
but I don't think it is a good idea to misinform ppl or to lead to the conclusion that rules do not exist or that breaking these special rules won't harm them.
I'd like to give you an example here:
A german student had uploaded some wallpapers to his homepage that he found on the internet, advertized as free.
What he did not know, as he was only 17, they where free for downloading and for personal use but not free for publishing aka reposting them on the internet.
They brought up a lawesuit against him - He lost and he had to pay about 12000 Euro of fees and compensation.
He did not realise that he did something wrong but that didn't save him.
So much for your galaxy theory.
I don't mean to frighten anyone here but I do suggest that ppl who don't seem to know what they are actually talking abou tshould restrain themself from copying and pasting information about legal issues and interpreting these bids according to their personal beliefs.
This is not helpful too naive users who seek for guidance.

Btw..what do you think of stealing copyrighted material from Viggo himself, like poems or photgraphs?
And if you do so, what di you think would Viggo think about it.
He is an artist and I know that he tries to protect his work from being pirated.
He ( or his lawyers) have threatened ppl with lawsuits before!
Think about that befor you make up your mind!

I cannot think Viggo would do such a thing. Because he wants that his Fans read his Poems and what he has to say. And we cannot write to him and ask if it is OK for him for us to take his poems and everything.